Re: Psychological Trauma - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 13:46:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 07:42:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma - Velez
>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 13:14:03 EST
>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
>To: ufoupdates@home.com
>>Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 10:43:42 -0500
>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
>>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>>>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 15:57:30 EST
>>>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
>>>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
>>>>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:54:33 EST
>>>>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
>>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
><snip>
>>Hello Kevin,
>>You write:
>>>The real point is the abduction researchers know what is
>>>happening but they fail to understand the significance. And
>>>that, I believe, is the point that Jim is making.
>>I find it amusing that Jim made his point so 'clearly' that
>>everybody else has to (interpret) "guess" as to what he may have
>>meant. I'm going to ask you the same thing as I asked
>>Mortelarro;
>>Show me the poll or the interviews with a substantial group of
>>either Budd, David, or John Mack's clients that substantiates
>>these outrageous claims that they 'uniformly' all share the
>>_same_ point of view as the individual researchers in question?
Hi Kevin, hi All,
Kevin opines:
>Actually, this is something of a red herring. I quoted from both
>Mack and Jacobs, making the same point that Jim had made. It was
>Mack who suggested that Hopkins, Jacobs, and Nyman pull from
>their experiencers what they want to see. Mack said it to us
>during a video taped interview and he said it to Bryant in his
>book... as I mentioned before.
"Pulling from their experiencers what they want to see" has to
do with "leading" or "suggestion" Kevin. The "Docca" claims that
the experiencers themselves all share the same "take" (point of
view) as the researchers in question. Two different subjects.
You are talking about a "before" situation (where someone is
lead in some way) and the "Docca" is talking about an "after"
effect (people who have adopted or share the same point of
view/take) on the phenom as the researchers they consulted.
So,
...are we discussing Hopkins', Jacobs', and Mack's alleged
'leading' of their clients, or are we discussing Mortellaro's
unfounded claim that they are _all_ de facto in agreement with
the researchers in question "points of view?"
If anyone is introducing "red Herrings" it is the Randle Fish
Market! The Docca and myself are debating one thing, and _you_
are introducing another. Fish anyone? ;)
>In our research we used abductees who had been regressed by all
>three... and those regressed by Yvonne Smith, John Carpenter and
>several others including "He Who Shall Remain Nameless."
>But once again, if you have an argument with the observation,
>then please take it up with John Mack and David Jacobs as well.
I don't have any 'argument' with them. It is Mortellaro who is
making unfounded claims and insulting a large group of really
nice, bright, individuals with his insinuations. Now you chime
in with "they lead their clients." Yet neither one of you has
answered my simple and very straightforward question:
Show me the poll or study that shows that the clients of
Hopkins, Jacobs and Mack all share the same point of view as the
researchers in question.
Simple question. But try getting a straight answer around here!
You guys picked a bad time to mess with me. I'm in between web
jobs and I have a little _time_ for the List. Bring it on!
<screeching maniacal laughter>
Until I get a relevant response from _either_ of you on the
question at hand,
regards,
John Velez
Waiting
A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center
www.spacelab.net/~jvif/default.htmjohnvelez.aic@verizon.net
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."